May 29, 2012

Obama safe in Michigan

Barack Obama won't have to worry too much about holding Michigan for the Democrats this fall- he leads Mitt Romney 53-39 there, a lead little changed from PPP's last poll of the state in February when his advantage was 54-38.

Romney just doesn't have much of a home field advantage in the state. Only 24% of voters consider him to be a Michigander to 65% who do not. And only 35% have a favorable opinion of him to 57% with a negative view.

It's not just Romney's unpopularity helping Obama in Michigan though. Obama's own approval rating is at a record high in our polling of the state with 53% of voters giving him good marks to 41% who disapprove, including a 50/43 standing with independents.

Obama's crushing Romney on what will doubtless be one of the biggest issues in the campaign in Michigan- 55% think that he's been better for the automotive industry in the state to only 31% who say Romney wins out on that front.

Going inside the numbers Obama's winning over 13% of Republican voters while losing just 7% of Democrats, and he also has a double digit advantage with independents at 48-36. Obama's winning women by a 58-34 margin and significantly has a 10 point lead with white voters at 50-40.

There's been some talk about Rick Snyder as a potential running mate but he wouldn't help the ticket any- with him as the VP pick Obama's lead actually expands slightly to 53-38. That's because Snyder continues to be an unpopular Governor with only 37% of voters approving of him to 52% who disapprove. That's a regression for Snyder compared to February when he was at 40/47, largely because he's seen a drop with independents.

Much was made during the Michigan primary about Romney's comments about the state's trees being 'the right height.' That line seems to go over most voters' heads- only 38% express the sentiment that their trees are the right height while 8% think they are not and 55% are unsure. Democrats (48%) are actually more likely to express agreement with Romney on that front than Republicans are (34%).

Things may get closer in Michigan between now and November but Obama has a lot of breathing room and looks pretty safe to take the state again, regardless of Romney's local connections.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Based on the economic recovery of Michigan I tend to agree with PPP here than with other pollsters. However, eventually it will be interesting to find out whether this changes with likely voters. Interesting that Obama leads among the whites...and everytime I talk to the Republicans they keep blaming Hispanics and blacks. I keep telling them that whites are the majority in this country and if even 65% voted for Romney in key states he will win...and the whitest state in the country...Vermont...is going heavily for Obama.

The Michican Results raise the question about other auto industry dependent states including OH, IN, IL, KY, MO, and TN. Of these I think OH, IN, and MO may be more favorable toward Obama than may have been expected

I have trouble with such polling outcomes (MI+14, PA+8) given the relative stability of extremely large sample, high frequency national polling which shows approximate parity (+/-2%).

This is especially true given the known demographic cross-sections of such states which have large, white working class populations that provided (as in PA's case) close electoral results such as in 2004 where it was a 2% differential. Knowing the national numbers and factoring in the large bastion states, it's hard to imagine such large variance in such states.

PPP's state-level polling has been highly suspect and I find this result just as indicative.

PA's population continues to concentrate in the cities and suburbs of Phila and Pitt, which heavily favors Dems. Further, Biden is originally from Scranton and is still popular there. Doesn't surprise me at all that PA has been moving out of reach for national R's over the last decade.

On what basis do you say that "PPP's state-level polling has been highly suspect"? They post their data and results, while you just make conclusory statements.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the republican government we have in Michigan is so crooked even the usaul "party loyalist" are getting mad. Recall Rick now. Vote Mike Rogers out of Michigan (author of CISPA and in bed with the big companies that want to take your privacy). Vote out the board of state canvessors who voted to silence 200,000 plus voters. Get EM overturned and take back our state.

Michigan re-elected a big-government, high-tax, high-regulation Democrat in 2006 after under her the state had dropped into a single state recession for many years. And Detroit has voted Democrat pretty consistent ever since it chased out all its wealth and became number one in crime. So it is no shocker that Michigan residents like Obama- we're gluttons for punishment, apparently.

There is no way that white voters in Michigan are voting for Obama. I don't even want Romney to win, and yet I know his support level is higher than this.

How can the race be tied nationally when Obama is leading by substantial margins in all of your swing state polls? It doesn't make sense or match up to other pollsters. Maybe it has to do with the registered voter screen vs. a likely voter one?

Bush almost won Michigan in 2004. I still expect Obama to win there, but not by more than 6 or 7 points.

No way in heck that Obama is up by the amount you guys found in Colorado or New Hampshire. He is probably barely ahead in both right now.

Vince, why should MI or PA act exactly like barometers for the rest of the country when that hasn't been true previously?

Obama beat McCain by about 7%. But he beat him by 11% in PA, and 16% in MI. And both went for Kerry in 2004, as well, and Kerry lost by 3%.

So if Obama's got a 2% lead nationally, he'd be ahead by about 6% in PA, and 11% in MI.

PA and MI aren't barometers. They're more Democratic than the rest of the country. Mitt supporters believing he's got a shot in MI is as delusional as Obama supporters believing that AZ is up for grabs b/c McCain's not on the ballot.

I get that you don't like PPP's results, but honestly, that seems to stem for the fact that you believe that two states are swing states when they're not, not really.

You complain that Pennsylvania had a 2.5% margin in the Republican year of 2004, so PPP showing an 8% margin is 'highly suspect?' Are you forgetting the 2008 election, with a 10.3% margin, or that individual states do not track the national numbers? All across the map, state-level polling is much more accurate than national polls, and every other pollster out there who does state-level polling is finding similar results; no matter what Romney might have in Rasmussen or Gallup, he's running well behind in most of the swing states, which argues that the national trackers are getting a large but systematically skewed sample. If you get 50% of your sample from the Confederate states, it doesn't matter how large your sample is; it's going to be skewed. PPP's state-level polling has been extremely accurate; Gallup and Rasmussen's national polling has, to put it mildly, been a little off in the past.

For a second time - I think President Obama and Senator Stabenow will win re-election. Snyder is very unpopular here, except with his base. They love him mostly because he's trying to destory the middle class in this state - all to help his rich buddies. Snyder campaigned as a moderate and has governed as a right winger. All you need do is look at the Emergency Manager Law and it will tell the story. Take over communites, especially with large minority populations and, in one case, help to build a golf course for your buddies. Despicable and Disgusting.

All states have a complex coupling to the national numbers. We can compactly classify this as an abstract variable or decompose it into a series of demographic and sociological variables.

It's all fine and good that 2008 saw Obama with an impressive margin of 10.3% in PA. But, that's off a national margin of +7.

So, when you have very several reputable, stable, very large global samples that are +/-2% we should be suspect of PA numbers that show an 8% differential. You have reinforced my point. Especially when one looks closer at the coupling and notes that we would naively expect the president to under-preform 2008's coupling constant due to the ubiquitiously observed slide in support among white, middle class voters.

It's not that I dislike PPP, much to the contrary. It's just that the recent published results are highly suspect given the abundance of available information.

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Name is required to post a comment

Please enter a valid email address

Invalid URL

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please enable JavaScript so you can sign in.

PPP POLLS BY YEAR: 2006-2015

We came to PPP after a public poll in the San Jose Mayoral race showed our opponent ahead by 8 points. They found our candidate (Sam Liccardo) ahead by 3 points and that allowed us to be able to push back with the press against the perception that our opponent was now a strong favorite in the race. Sam ended up winning by 2 points and is now the next Mayor of San Jose. PPP worked very fast and had a very accurate read on the electorate when we needed them–Eric Jaye, Storefront Political Media.

Advertisement

HIRE PPP

Dean DebnamPublic Policy Polling CEO

PPP is best known for putting out highly accurate polling on key political races across the country, but we also do affordable private research for candidates and organizations. Why pay tens of thousands of dollars for a survey when one of the most reliable companies in the nation can do it for less?"